Each aircraft generally has a flight identifier (i.e. Flight ID) for allowing Air Traffic Controllers to direct voice radio communication instructions specifically to that aircraft and to further allow Air Traffic Controllers to coordinate the activities of multiple aircraft which are located in the same airspace. For example, most scheduled air taxis, commuter and air carrier airlines use flight numbers as their radio callsigns. However, for most air carriers and commuters, flight numbers are not assigned by a regulatory authority, such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but rather by the respective airline's marketing department or some other entity, and thus, may not be tightly monitored. Further, Fixed-Based Operators (FBOs), general aviation aircraft, and most non-scheduled air taxis use aircraft tail numbers (the numbers or the number-and-letter combination) as their radio callsigns. Although these tail numbers may be regulatory authority-assigned, owners or operators of these corporate, FBO or air taxi aircraft may request “personalized” tail numbers, which in some cases may result in a whole family of aircraft having similar or similar-sounding numbers and letters in their tail numbers. Therefore, whether an aircraft uses a tail number assigned by a regulatory authority, such as the FAA, as its flight ID or radio callsign, or whether an aircraft uses a flight number that is not assigned by a regulatory authority as its flight ID or radio callsign, confusion may inadvertently arise. For instance, flight numbers, tail numbers or N-numbers assigned to two different aircraft may actually match, have only one character that is different, have characters that are transposed, or happen to sound similar when broadcast as callsigns over voice radio, etc. This is particularly problematic, for example, in that, if 2 aircraft sharing the same airspace have matching or similar sounding flight IDs or callsigns, confusion between pilots and air traffic controllers may occur, which can result in loss of required separation between aircraft, and can possibly cause accidents. The Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) receives a large number of reports regarding Flight ID (ex—callsign) similarities and confusion, as air traffic and voice radio transmissions increase. Most of the time, the reports indicate only momentary confusion or minor infractions of a clearance. However, other reports relate incidents as severe as near midair collisions (NMACs) or serious losses of separation.
A number of additional factors may increase the likelihood of “like sounding” callsigns or flight IDs being misheard. For example, poor voice radio communication technique, such as using an abbreviated version of the callsign or flight ID, not annunciating the callsign or flight ID clearly, or not paying adequate attention to detail during readback/hearback may be a factor. Other factors may include: workload-related fatigue/stress on the pilot or controller; frequency congestion (which may promote 2 or more matching or like-sounding flight IDs/callsigns being on the same channel); controllers getting flights confused when working more than one frequency; pilots becoming distracted from concentrating on voice radio transmissions to and from the controller due to having to simultaneously monitor other cockpit instrumentation; etc. Further, the Air Transport Association has recently recommended reducing separation distance requirements for aircraft in order to more efficiently utilize airspace and reduce airport delays as air traffic increases. Therefore, it may become increasingly important to quickly resolve flight ID confusion for pilots due to the tighter spacing and lower margin for error.
Thus, it would be desirable to provide a system and method for aiding pilots in resolving flight ID confusion which addresses the problems associated with current solutions.